Matthew D. Plumlee
Abstract
In order to investigate large information spaces effectively, it is often necessary to employ navigation mechanisms that allow users to view information at different scales. Some tasks require frequent movements and scale changes to search for details and compare them. We present a model that makes predictions about user performance on such comparison tasks with different interface options. A critical factor embodied in this model is the limited capacity of visual working memory, allowing for the cost of visits via fixating eye movements to be compared to the cost of visits that require user interaction with the mouse. This model is tested with an experiment that compares a zooming user interface with a multi-window interface for a multiscale pattern matching task. The results closely matched predictions in task performance times; however error rates were much higher with zooming than with multiple windows. We hypothesized that subjects made more visits in the multi-window condition, and ran a second experiment using an eye tracker to record the pattern of fixations. This revealed that subjects made far more visits back and forth between pattern locations when able to use eye movements than they made with the zooming interface. The results suggest that only a single graphical object was held in visual working memory for comparisons mediated by eye movements, reducing errors by reducing the load on visual working memory. Finally we propose a design heuristic: extra windows are needed when visual comparisons must be made involving patterns of a greater complexity than can be held in visual working memory.
- Ahlberg, C. and Shneiderman, B. 1994. Visual information seeking: Tight coupling of dynamic query filters with starfield displays. In Human Factors in Computing Systems CHI'94 Proceedings. ACM Press, 313--317. Google Scholar
- Bartram, L., Ovans, R., Dill, J., Dyck, M., Ho, A., and Havens, W. S. 1994. Contextual assistance in user interfaces to complex, time-critical systems: The intelligent zoom. In Proceedings of Graphics Interfaces '94. Morgan Kaufmann, Palo Alto, CA 216--224.Google Scholar
- Bauer, M. I. and John, B. E. 1995. Modeling time-constrained learning in a highly interactive task. In Human Factors in Computing Systems CHI'95 Proceedings. ACM Press, 19--26. Google Scholar
- Beard, D. and Walker, J. 1990. Navigational techniques to improve the display of large two-dimensional spaces. Behavior Info. Tech. 9, 6, 451--466.Google Scholar
- Bederson, B. and Boltman, A. 1999. Does animation help users build mental maps of spatial information? In Proceedings of the 1999 IEEE Symposium on Information Visualization, 28--35. Google Scholar
- Bederson, B. B. and Hollan, J. D. 1994. Pad++: A zooming graphical interface for exploring alternate interface physics. In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST'94). ACM Press, 17--26. Google Scholar
- Card, S. K., Moran, T. P., and Newell, A. 1983. The Psychology of Human-Computer Interaction. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ. Google Scholar
- Carpendale, M. S. T., Cowperthwaite, D. J., and Fracchia, F. D. 1997. Extending distortion viewing from 2D to 3D. IEEE Comput. Graph. Appl., July/Aug, 42--51. Google Scholar
- Furnas, G. W. 1986. Generalized fisheye views. In Proceedings of CHI'86. ACM Press, 16--23. Google Scholar
- Hornbaek, K., Bederson, B. B., and Plaisant, C. 2002. Navigation patterns and usability of zoomable user interfaces with and without an overview. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Inter. 9, 4, 362--389. Google Scholar
- Lamping, J., Rao, R., and Pirolli, P. 1995. A focus+context technique based on hyperbolic geometry for visualizing large hierarchies. In Human Factors in Computing Systems CHI'95 Proceedings. ACM Press, 401--408. Google Scholar
- Miyake, A. and Shah, P. 1999. Models of Working Memory: Mechanisms of Active Maintenance and Executive Control. Cambridge University Press, NY. Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
- North, C. and Shneiderman, B. 2000. Snap-together visualization: A user interface for coordinating visualizations via relational schemata. In Proceedings of the Working Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces (AVI 2000). ACM Press, 128--135. Google Scholar
- Palmer, S. E. 1999. Vision Science---Photons to Phenomenology. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
- Perlin, K. and Fox, D. 1993. An alternative approach to the computer interface. In Proceedings of Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques (SIGGRAPH'93). 57--64. Google Scholar
- Phillips, W. A. 1974. On the distinction between sensory storage and short-term visual memory. Perception and Psychophysics 16, 283--290.Google Scholar
- Plaisant, C., Carr, D., and Shneiderman, B. 1995. Image browsers: Taxonomy, guidelines and informal specifications. IEEE Softw. 12, 2, 21--32. Google Scholar
- Plumlee, M. and Ware, C. 2002. Zooming, multiple windows, and visual working memory. In Proceedings of the Working Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces (AVI 2002). ACM Press, 59--68. Google Scholar
- Plumlee, M. and Ware, C. 2003. Integrating multiple 3D views through frame-of-reference interaction. In Proceedings International Conference on Coordinated & Multiple Views in Exploratory Visualization (CMV 2003). IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 34--43. Google Scholar
- Sakai, K. and Inui, T. 2002. A feature-segmentation model of short-term visual memory. Perception 31, 579--589.Google Scholar
- Sarkar, M. and Brown, M. H. 1994. Graphical fisheye views. Comm. ACM 47, 12 (Dec.), 73--84. Google Scholar
- Shneiderman, B. 1998. Designing the User Interface. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.Google Scholar
- Simon, H. A. 1956. Rational choice and the structure of the environment. Psychological Review 63, 129--138.Google Scholar
- Skopik, A. and Gutwin, C. 2003. Finding things in fisheyes: Memorability in distorted spaces. In Proceedings Graphics Interface. 47--55.Google Scholar
- Vogel, E. K., Woodman, G. F., and Luck, S. J. 2001. Storage of features, conjunctions, and objects in visual working memory. J. Exper. Psycho.: Human Perception and Performance 27, 1, 92--114.Google Scholar
- Wang Baldonado, M., Woodruff, A., and Kuchinsky, A. 2000. Guidelines for using multiple views in information visualization. In Proceedings of the Working Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces (AVI 2000). ACM Press, 110--119. Google Scholar
- Ware, C., Plumlee, M., Arsenault, R., Mayer, L. A., Smith, S., and House, D. 2001. Data fusion for interpreting oceanographic data. Oceans 2001, Hawaii, CD ROM Proceedings.Google Scholar
- Zhang, W. and Luck, S. J. 2004. Do representations decay in visual working memory? J. Vision, 4, 8, 396a.Google Scholar
Index Terms
- Zooming versus multiple window interfaces: Cognitive costs of visual comparisons
Recommendations
Zooming, multiple windows, and visual working memory
AVI '02: Proceedings of the Working Conference on Advanced Visual InterfacesZooming and multiple windows are two techniques designed to address the focus-in-context problem. We present a theoretical model of performance that models the relative benefits of these techniques when used by humans for completing a task involving ...
Does (multi-)touch aid users' spatial memory and navigation in 'panning' and in 'zooming & panning' UIs?
AVI '12: Proceedings of the International Working Conference on Advanced Visual InterfacesRecent findings from Embodied Cognition reveal strong effects of arm and hand movement on spatial memory. This suggests that input devices may have a far greater influence on users' cognition and users' ability to master a system than we typically ...
Simulating human saccadic scanpaths on natural images
CVPR '11: Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern RecognitionHuman saccade is a dynamic process of information pursuit. Based on the principle of information maximization, we propose a computational model to simulate human saccadic scanpaths on natural images. The model integrates three related factors as driven ...
Comments